country profile hepatitis b and c in the united kingdom

Country Profile Hepatitis B and C in the United Kingdom

The UK has a low baseline CHB prevalence of 0.54%. However, many first generation migrants (FMG) in the UK originate from countries with an intermediate or high hepatitis B endemic-ity. The number of irregular migrants is estimated to range between 524,000 – 947,000. These mainly originate from Jamaica, Nigeria, Pakistan, China, Turkey and India, all of which are intermediate to high hepatitis B endemicity countries.Based on robust studies and model calculations, the HCV prevalence in the general population is estimated to be 0.6%

in England and Wales and 1% in Scotland in the 15 – 59 yrs. age group. Based on reported numbers of laboratory con-firmed cases, an estimated 36-38% of HCV-infected individ-uals have been diagnosed, i.e. more than 60% cases remain undiagnosed. IDU is the major risk factor in >90% of cases in the UK. Due to a high prevalence in countries of origin, migrants from countries with historic links to the UK, such as India and Pakistan, and from eastern European (former Soviet) countries are also affected.

The estimated age-standardised mortality rates of cirrhosis and liver cancer in the UK are, respectively, 14.9 and 3.6 for men and 7.6 and 1.7 for women (per 100,000).1 Hepatitis care performance in 30 European countries is com-

pared in the Euro Hepatitis Index and the UK ranks 7th in this comparison. The UK has the highest score in the sub-discipline ‘National strategy/patient involvement and rights’, together with France and Bulgaria.2

Country ProfileHepatitis B and C in the United KingdomBy the HEPscreen WP4 Team:

Abby Falla, Amena Ahmad, Miriam Levi and Irene Veldhuijzen

This document has four parts. The first part presents demographic and epidemiological data including the estimated burden of viral hepatitis in migrants. The second part summarises the data gathered via a survey among experts in public health and in health care services involved in viral hepatitis screening or clinical management. The third part lists guidelines about viral hepatitis available. Finally, an overview of the health system context and the history of migration is included.

Population: 61 million (2009) Migrant population (foreign born): 6.9 million (11.3% of total pop.) Hepatitis B prevalence: 0.54% (~330,000 cases) Hepatitis C prevalence: 0.6%

Country of Birth of Main Migrant Populations

FGM Population Size in 2009 (1000s)

Estimated CHB prevalence

Estimated number of CHB cases among migrants

Nigeria 166,000 11.6 – 15.1 19,206 – 25,000

India 661,000 2.9 – 3.6 19,301 – 23,466

Pakistan 427,000 3.6 – 4.6 15,329 – 20,283

Zimbabwe 126,000 10.7 – 17.1 13,482 – 21,559

South Africa 220,000 4.7 – 7.7 10,296 – 16,940

Burden of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) and C among migrants in the United Kingdom

References1 EASL (2013). The Burden of Liver Disease in Europe: A review of Available Epidemiological Data2 Health Consumer Powerhouse (2012). Euro Hepatitis Index 2012 Report

Estimated number of CHB cases among the five main CHB affected migrant populations in the UK

Liver disease burden and hepatitis care performance

Part 1 : Demographics and epidemiology


Screening for Hepatitis B and CWe explored how common it is for population/risk groups to be screened for hepatitis B/C. Responses revealed inconsistencies in screening practices as evident in the table below1.

Population Groups Screening for Hepatitis B (HBV) Screening for Hepatitis C (HCV)

Pregnant women Very frequently practiced Rarely practiced by ANC, varied re-sponse from PHE

First generation/resident migrants Commonly practiced in SHS, sporadic practice by GPs, varied response from PHE

Varied response in all surveys

Asylum seekers Varied response in all surveys

People who inject drugs (PWID) Very frequently practiced by GPs and SHS, varied response from PHE

Very frequently practiced by SHS, varied response from GPs and PHE

Sex workers Very frequently in SHS, common prac-tice among GPs, varied response from PHE

Common practice by GPs, sporadic practice in SHS, varied response from PHE

MSM Very frequently practiced by SHS, com-mon practice in GPs, varied response from PHE

Varied response

HIV positive patients Common practice in GPs and SHS, var-ied response from PHE

Common practice in SHS and PHE, var-ied response from GPs

Patients with 2nd abnormal liver func-tion test (LFT)

Common practice in GPs, varied re-sponse from PHE

Commonly practiced among GPs, varied response from PHE

Patients with clinical symptoms Common practice (according to GPs and PHE)

Varied response

On patient’s request Common practice in GPs and SHS Commonly practiced by GPs and SHS

Contacts of hepatitis B/C pos. patients Very frequently practiced in SHS, com-mon practice by ASCP and Sp., varied response from GPs and PHE

Varied responses from PHE, ASCP, Sp and SHS; GPs are mostly unsure

Contacts of hepatitis B pos. pregnant women

Varied response -

Hepatitis C pos. patients for Hepatitis B, and vice versa

Very frequently practiced by ASCP and Sp., common practice by GPs and SHS, varied response from PHE

LegendLabelled as: Corresponds to…% in questionnaire surveyVery frequently practiced >= 85% - Yes/Very common/on a regular basisCommonly practiced 60% - 84.9% - Yes/Very common/on a regular basisNot practiced >= 85% - No/rarely or neverRarely practiced 60% - 84.9% - No/rarely or neverSporadic practice >= 60% sporadic/irregular practiceMostly unsure >= 60% UnsureVaried response < 60% in all categories

Part 2 : Survey among experts in health care and public health

In this online survey, we explored current practices and envisaged a ‘patient pathway’ from screening and diagnosis, to counselling and referral, to clinical management and treatment. Data were collected from 51 experts across six specialities: public health; antenatal care; general practice; sexual health services; health care for asylum seekers; and specialist secondary care.

1 AbbreviationsGP - General Practitioners; SHS - Sexual Health Services; ASCP - Asylum Seeker Care Providers; Sp. - Specialist secondary care; PHE - Public Health Experts; -ANC - Antenatal Care Providers


Conclusions about screening from the survey f Universal HBV (HBsAG) screening for pregnant women exists,

however HCV screening is generally not offered.

f Responses about HBV/HCV screening among migrants varied widely. Although HBV screening seems to be more common in sexual health services, the overall picture was diverse.

f Asylum seeker care provider responses were very diverse. This signifies that despite both HBV and HCV being prev-alent in the countries of origin of most asylum seekers, screening is not practiced on a regular basis.

f HBV screening among behavioural high risk groups (e.g. PWID, sex workers and MSM) seems to be more common than indicated by public health professionals. HCV screen-ing varies widely however.

f Screening of HIV patients for both HBV and HCV seems to be common practice in sexual health services, although it is only common for GPs to only screen for HBV.

f In practice, patients with a second (repeated) abnormal LFT would prompt most GPs to screen for HBV and HCV.

f Most GPs and sexual health service providers indicated screening patients who specifically request for a test on due to exposure concerns.

f Screening contacts of HBV patients seems to be common practice although this isn’t the case for contacts of HCV patients.

The survey responses revealed diversity in current HBV and HCV screening practices both among members of the same profession as well as between different professionals in the UK. The decision to offer HBV/HCV screening to migrants and other at-risk groups seems to be at the discretion of the health care professionals. This is highly subjective and dependent on the knowledge, personal judgment and past experience of the health care provider, as well as the context in which the service is provided. These suggested inconsistencies in screen-ing practices will likely result in many chronic HBV/HCV cases remaining undetected.

Barriers to Hepatitis B/C screeningThe surveyed experts considered the following statements as major barriers to the uptake of screening among FGM in the UK:

f limited awareness about Hepatitis B and C in general and about its long term consequences;

f the subjective feeling of being healthy;

f low awareness among FGM from enedmic countries about their significantly higher risk of infection;

f limited awareness that screening and subsequent treat-ment can prevent future complications;

f the lack of information about where to go for testing;

f fear of social stigma and;

f language barriers.

In addition, low unawareness among primary health care providers about improved treatment options was stated as a potential barrier for why migrants are not screened at the first point of contact with primary health care services e.g. GPs.

Training available to health care professionalsTraining about chronic hepatitis B or C is available to most pro-fessionals, especially secondary care specialists and SHS/GUM. Availability seems less routine among GPs and ANC experts. Un-certainty exists for a notable proportion, especially among GPs, ANC providers and some SHS/GUM specialists. Training about these specific diseases does not seem to be available for profes-sionals involved in health care for asylum seekers. Examples of specific training available included local and in-house training, e-learning packages on viral hepatitis produced by BASHH, the NHS Scotland Hep C resource, departmental meetings, the NHS Board BBV training and education sessions by the NHS BBV training team, BASL/BSG educational events and a Royal College of GPs hepatitis B/C training course.

Availability of patient information materials and interpretersMaterials about hepatitis B and C in English were most com-monly available in specialist secondary care, SHS, ANC and health care services for asylum seekers and refugees. There was no survey where all respondents indicated it was very common however. These materials were least commonly available in GPs. Materials in languages other than English were much less commonly available in all services but especially rare in GPs. For the majority in all but the GP surveys, availability was not routine although a notable minority of ANC (n=2) and specialists (n=3) indicated that translated materials about hepatitis B/C are very commonly available for patients in their services.

Telephone interpreters are not routinely available in GPs and health care services for asylum seekers. The majority of experts in ANC, SHS/GUM and specialist secondary care indi-cated telephone interpreters were very commonly available, although one ANC expert indicated rarely or never. Availability of face to face interpreters was much less common overall, but especially in GP services. SHS/GUM, specialists and ANC respondents report most common availability. Provision of face to face interpreters in health services for asylum seekers seems very variable.


Hepatitis-related nationally certified centres/centres of excellenceVery few secondary care specialists indicated that these cen-tres exist in the UK and the limited details provided suggest that there is no list available.

Counselling quality and provisionThe quality of pre-test counselling provided by GPs is excellent or good. Findings suggest that GPs and other primary care ser-vices sometimes provide comprehensive post-test counselling to viral hepatitis patients but the quality of this counselling is variable; some GPs/primary care services deliver excellent or good but most reported basic quality. This is probably explained by the very common referral of patients for counsel-ling by GPs mainly to gastroenterologists/hepatologists and infectious diseases specialists and that responsibility for coun-selling newly diagnosed patients is reported to rest with these professionals. This is reflected in the excellent or good quality counselling provided by most (90%) specialists.

SHS/GUM clinics are generally involved in counselling HBV and/or HCV patients and the counselling provided at both the pre- and post-test stage is of excellent quality. However, a range of services/professionals were identified by SHS survey respondents as having the main responsibility for counselling newly diagnosed patients.

Pre-test counselling is provided to pregnant women by ANC providers, specifically midwives or gynaecologists, but some-times also by GPs. The pre-test counselling provided in ANC is generally excellent quality although results suggest some is of basic or poor quality. Responsibility for post-test counselling for HBV+ pregnant women is a shared by a range of profes-sionals including infectious disease specialists, gastroenterol-ogists/hepatologists and ANC providers but not GPs or public health services. The quality provided by ANC providers is again mostly excellent or good although some were only awarded basic.

Some asylum seekers are not provided with pre-test informa-tion before screening for HBV and/or HCV but of those who are, the quality is excellent or good. Post-test counselling is also mostly excellent quality and several services are iden-tified as involved and/or responsible including GPs, health services at receiving centres/national border control, NGOs, community or practice nurses and gastroenterologists/hepa-tologists.

Referral practicesGPs are the most common service from which specialists receive patients and GPs rarely use clinical indicators to define those eligible for referral. If clinical indicators are used, these are viral load, HBeAg status and ALT, and one GP indicated the relative stability of (IV) drug use. The views of GPs and those of specialists differ markedly about referral of patients who do not qualify for treatment back to GPs; GPs reported it to be very common whilst specialists reported it to be rare or never. Referral back to the GP of patients undergoing antiviral treatment is not common although results allude to a shared role for GPs in the clinical monitoring of ALT, viral load and side effects. Divergent responses dominated by a high level of uncertainty was seen among GPs about whether patients who have sustained virological response due to treatment and patients who are non-responders to treatment are referred back to GPs. This was not seen among specialist secondary care provider opinion; the former group of patients is very commonly referred back whereas the latter group are rarely or never referred back to the GP.

All pregnant women are referred to specialist secondary care, without the use of clinical indicators, and it is very common for specialists to receive patients directly from maternity services. Clinical indicators are rarely used to define which asylum seeker patients are referred to secondary care. Most services involved in screening, including GPs, SHS/GUM, maternity services and health care services at receiving centres, are able to refer asylum seeker patients to secondary care. Generally all HBV/HCV positive patients are directly referred by SHS/GUM clinics to specialist care without the use of clinical indicators. Although SHS/GUM clinics may also refer via GP as well.

Use of diagnostic testsHBeAg, ALT, other biochemical markers and viral load are very commonly used in the initial evaluation of patients. Genotype and ultrasound are too although slightly less commonly than the first four tests. Liver biopsy and Elastography are more variably used. None of the diagnostic tools are rarely or never used by specialists.

Availability of HBV treatmentFew restrictions in the use of the available antiviral treatment for chronic HBV infection are in place in the UK. Telbivudine was the most restricted option, probably due to its low barrier to resistance and unsuitability in patients with a high viral load. Adefovir and Lamivudine were also restricted. Lami-vudine was described as a rarely used option and generally limited for use in patients with a low viral load.


Availability of HCV treatmentNo restrictions in the use of interferon α or Ribavirin for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C infection were reported in the UK. Restriction to specific hospitals and varying approval rates in different areas are reported by some respondents about the use of the newer protease inhibitors, Boceprevir and Tela-previr. A large proportion indicated no limitations.

Treatment limitations among patient/population groupsTreatment for chronic hepatitis B/C infection was most restricted for undocumented migrants. Most reported no restrictions in treatment for those with only state insurance, although significant restrictions were in place for patients with no insurance coverage. This is some what surprising given the

NHS organisation and associated universal free access in gen-eral. However, the term ‘no insurance’ could be ambiguous as some form of registration is required to receive social support, such as a National Insurance/NHS number or GP registration. Our results suggest that access to health care would be limited without registration, although not because patients do not have health insurance, but because those without state insur-ance cover are effectively considered undocumented migrants or persons for whom health care coverage is uncertain. Treat-ment for asylum seekers was largely not restricted except for a minority of specialists who reported significant restrictions to be in place. Few restrictions are reported for people who are currently injecting drugs or abusing alcohol, although a minority also suggest significant restrictions to treatment for these patients are in place.

Data gathered via a systematic literature search and via the survey

# Produced by Date Title and URL Identified

Via survey (specify)

Via lit. search

1 Department of Health

Update 2013 Immunisation against Infectious Disease. ‘The Green book’ https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/immunisation-against-infectious-disease-the-green-book#the-green-book

PHE, SHS


2011 Hepatitis B antenatal screening and newborn immunisation programme: Best practice guidance https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hepatitis-b-antenatal-screening-and-newborn-immunisation-programme-best-practice-guidance

PHE, ASCP

3 UK National Screening Committee

Update 2012 Infectious Diseases in Pregnancy Screening (IDPS) Programme. Programme Standards. http://infectiousdiseases.screening.nhs.uk/standards

PHE, ANC, GP, ASCP


2009 Hepatitis C Quick reference guide for primary care http://www.nhs.uk/hepatitisc/SiteCollectionDocuments/pdf/Hepatitis_C_quick_reference_for_PC_April2011.pdf

PHE, Specialist

6 HPA 2011 Standards for local surveillance and follow up of hepatitis B and C. http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/hpawebfile/hpaweb_c/1194947376936

PHE, SHS, ANC

Part 3 : Guidelines

We identified guidelines available in the UK about viral hepatitis using systematic literature search methods alongside the survey among experts. Table 2 presents the results, indicating from which of these methods the guideline was identified and including a link to the latest update.


8 British Viral Hepatitis Group (BVHG)

2008 UK guidelines for the initial management of hepatitis B infection: BVHG Consensus Statement UK guidelines for the management of babies born to women who are HBsAg positive’ http://infectiousdiseases.screening.nhs.uk/getdata.php?id=10844.

ANC

9 Scottish Government

2011 The Sexual Health and Blood Borne Virus Framework 2011-2015 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/08/24085708/0

SHS

10 British Association for Sexual Health and HIV (BASHH)

2008 UK National Guideline on the Management of the Viral Hepatitides A, B & C http://www.bashh.org/documents/1927.pdf

ANC, SHS

11 NHS Lothian 2011 BBV Testing in Adults Guideline http://www.refhelp.scot.nhs.uk/dmdocuments/Infectious%20Diseases/BBV%20testing%20Guideline%202010%20NHS%20Lothian.pdf

SHS

12 British HIV Association (BHIVA)

Update 2013 Guidelines for the management of hepatitis viruses in adults infected with HIV http://www.bhiva.org/documents/Guidelines/Hepatitis/2013/HepatitisGuidelines2013.pdf

ANC, SHS

13 NICE 2007 TA 96 Adefovir dipivoxil and peginterferon alfa-2a for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B. http://guidance.nice.org.uk/TA96

SpecialistX

14 NICE 2009 TA 153 Entecavir for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B. http://guidance.nice.org.uk/TA153

Specialist

15 NICE 2009 TA 154 Telbivudine for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B. http://guidance.nice.org.uk/TA154

Specialist

16 NICE 2012 TA 173 Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for the treatment of hepatitis B. http://guidance.nice.org.uk/TA173

Specialist

17 Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN)

2013 Management of hepatitis C: A national clinical guideline (SIGN 133 – update to SIGN 92 (2006) http://www.sign.ac.uk/pdf/sign133.pdf

PHE

X

18 The Royal College of General Practitioners

2007 Guidance for the prevention, testing, treatment and management of hepatitis C in primary care http://www.rcgp.org.uk/revalidation-and-cpd/~/media/Files/SMAH/RCGP-Guidance-for-prevention-testing-treatment-and-management-of-hepatitis-C-in-primary-care-2007.ashx

PHE

19 NHS Scotland 2006-08 Hepatitis C Action Plan for Scotland http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/09/15093626/13

GP, Specialist X

20 UK Screening Programme

2011 Antenatal Screening For Hepatitis C http://www.screening.nhs.uk/hepatitisc-pregnancy

GP

21 British Society of Gastroenterology

2001 Clinical guidelines on the management of hepatitis C http://www.bsg.org.uk/clinical-guidelines/liver/clinical-guidelines-on-the-management-of-hepatitis-c.html

SpecialistX


OverviewThe UK’s health care system is called the National Health System (NHS). It is financed by national taxation and managed by the Department of Health under the Secretary of State for Health. While no constitutional guarantee of the right to health exists due to the ‘unwritten’ nature of the constitution, national and supra-state protective mechanisms are in place to protect and promote health for all. The NHS is legally bound to provide a “universal service for all based on clinical need, not ability to pay.” Their guiding principles assert “health care is a basic human right…unlike private systems; the NHS will not exclude people because of their health status or ability to pay.” The gate-keeping and central role of the GP is a key feature of entitlement and access to care for all residents. A recent signifi-cant change to the organisation of the purchase of services also places GPs (in the form of GP Commissioning Consortia) at the heart of NHS service provision.

History of migrationWith its strong colonial past, the volume of immigration into the UK from the former colonies was sufficiently large in the 1950s and 1960s to make it unnecessary to recruit large numbers of guest workers from Southern Europe, Turkey and North Africa. Immigrant communities which were first established in this pe-riod are referred to as black and minority ethnic (BME) groups. These groups tend not to regard themselves as ‘migrants’, because the term suggests they are outsiders to mainstream British society. There have also been recent waves of migration following EU expansion, mostly from Poland.Attitudes to diversity are traditionally quite tolerant and Britain has proudly managed to absorb, over many centuries, an amaz-ing variety of cultural and linguistic influences. Yet, xenophobic and racist attitudes are never far beneath the surface, as the contents of certain right-wing mass circulation newspapers confirm every day. There is therefore a strong legal framework of anti-racism legislation confirming Britain’s commitment to diversity.

Migrant health policyPolicy objectives prioritise the improvement of health, the reduction of inequalities in health, and access to the services by ethnic minorities. As there is a longer tradition of immigration, policies are developed to reduce health care inequalities among ethnic minorities, acknowledging that after decades of immi-gration, society is made up of diverse groups; however some

strategies are specifically directed towards immigrants. Collection of self reported ethnicity rather than country of birth, date of arrival, etc, is more common in registry and cen-sus data although the Health Survey for England collects data on country of birth, including parental country of birth, and ethnicity. Country of birth is also included in mortality statistics. As categorization does not consider country of birth, it there-fore does not distinguish between different migrants and their descendants. As a result, the specific health needs of newly arrived migrants might be overlooked.

The Department of Health notes that written translations of material may not be cost-effective as many of those who live in the UK who cannot read English also cannot read their own preferred language. Instead, it suggests exploring different strategies, such as the use of video- or audio cassettes, although these have largely been limited to basic health promotion messages. Cultural and religious preferences are also taken into account in health service provision, including the gender of health professionals and choice of hospital meals.

Access to health careEligibility for health care within the NHS, other than in an emergency, is restricted to those that are ‘ordinarily resident’ and all residents of the UK are entitled to register with a GP. GP registration is often the most important administrative require-ment for access to (onward or secondary) health care. The British Medical Association has noted “considerable confusion about overseas visitors’ eligibility for NHS primary medical services; this is largely because of a lack of clarity in the NHS regulations.” One the one hand, undocumented migrants may receive primary health care in the UK, including first contact treatment with medical providers such as GPs, if registered with a GP or using an Accident and Emergency (A&E) Departments. However, regulations have limited subsidised secondary care to those able to prove one year’s legal residence in the UK. Those unable to prove this legal residence may only access non-urgent secondary care on confirming their ability to pay. “Immediate” and “urgent” treatment should be provided without delay but the patient will be issued a bill.

Part 4 : Health system context and the history of migration in the UKThis section is based a literature search of sources and scientific evidence.


References

Rechel et al Eds. (2011) Migration and Health in the EU. European Observatory on Health Systems and Policy Series.

Ingleby, D (2006) Getting Multicultural Health Care off the Ground: Britain and The Netherlands Compared International Journal of Migration, Health and Social Care Vol. 2 (1).

Vazquez, M. L., R. Terraza-Nunez, et al. (2011). Health policies for migrant populations in three European countries: England; Italy and Spain. Health Policy 101(1): 70-78.

PICUM (2007) Access to Health Care for Undocumented Migrants in Europe.

Nielsen, S. S., A. Krasnik, et al. (2009). Registry data for cross-country comparisons of migrants’ healthcare utilization in the EU: a survey study of availability and content. BMC Health Services Res 9: 210.

Jayaweera, H. and M. A. Quigley (2010). Health status, health behaviour and healthcare use among migrants in the UK: evidence from mothers in the Millennium Cohort Study. Soc Sci Med 71(5): 1002-10.

Co-funded bythe Health Programmeof the European Union

Responsibilityfortheinformationandviewssetoutinthisdocumentliesentirelywiththeauthors.TheEuropeanCommissionisnotresponsibleforanyusethatmaybemadeoftheinformationcontainedherein.

October2014 www.hepscreen.eu